← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Collaboration required

If they say: You’re being uncooperative by refusing this option.

Say: I’m willing to try what seems reasonable and aligns with our values—but if it fails, we all have a duty to keep adapting. That’s what the law requires.

Legal grounding:
See A and B obo Infant A v. School District C (No. 5), 2018 BCHRT 25 – failure to engage with a reasonable proposal can be fatal to a discrimination complaint.

This entry draws from Kim Block’s Part 5: Duty to Accommodate – Duty to Facilitate, which explains that while school districts hold final authority over decisions, families have an equal responsibility to participate in the process with openness and seriousness. Working toward accommodation does not mean agreeing to everything—rather, it means making a genuine effort to explore, trial, and evaluate what is offered, so long as it appears to have potential to meet the child’s needs.

Key takeaways

Parents must engage meaningfully with reasonable offers
Human rights decisions confirm that a parent who refuses to even try a plausible support plan may see their complaint dismissed—even if they are acting out of love or frustration.
Advocacy is not obstruction
Strong, persistent, or emotional advocacy cannot be used to deny a child’s rights. The school must continue the accommodation process regardless of how “difficult” they perceive the parent to be.
The duty is shared, not surrendered
When both parties engage in good faith, even difficult or imperfect proposals can be improved. If the first accommodation fails, the school must return to the table—not abandon the effort.